Claim Form - CEL - County Court

MarcusRash

"In the County Court Business Centre, Northampton

CLAIM NO XXXX

BETWEEN

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED
V

XXXX

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.


2. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. .

3. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

4. The signs in this car park are not at all prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. At time of the alleged contravention, the one single small sign at the entrance could not be read fully and properly without stopping, and it is also possible to park in a bay without coming close to any other sign. Civil Enforcement are required to show evidence to the contrary.

5. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

6. The defendants vehicle is a lease vehicle and the leasing company in question have admitted to the defendant in writing that they had an incorrect address for the defendant. Thus liability has never been passed from the lease company to the hirer/lessee as set out in POFA schedule 4. Liability can only be transferred if the registered keeper (lease company) had properly notified the parking firm of the name and address for service of the hirer/lessee. They failed, therefore if there is any liability to pursue it still rests with the lease company and it is indisputable that the defendant was never served with a compliant notice to hirer.

7. The address was incorrect that the claimant has been pursuing and any correspondence via letter has not been received by the defendant. The address the claimant have on file is ** **** ***** ******* this is the address of a neighbouring town and not the legal address of the defendant. The correct address for the defendant is ** ***** **** *******and lies in a separate village. The address was wrong on the claim form issued by the claimant, therefore not received by the defendant at their legal address.

8. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case.


a. It is believed the Claimant does not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. The Defendant has no evidence that they have any proprietary interest in the car park/land in question. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name. Any such claim should be in the name of the landowner.


b. The Defendant asks the Claimant to provide a full, up-to date and signed/dated contract with the landowner (a statement saying someone has seen the contract is not enough). The contract needs to state that the Claimant is entitled to pursue matters such as these through the issue of Parking Charge Notices and in the courts in their own name. The defendant clarifies that this should be an actual copy and not just a document that claims a contract/agreement exists.


9. Even if a contract had been established it would be void. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant was not acting in "good faith" and that the charges are unlawful, as they are in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, specifically regulation 62(4).


a. The Defendant believes that the charges added Legal Representative (£50) are fake and were not incurred by the Claimant and therefore cannot be recovered in Court as part of this claim.


b. Even if the Legal representative’s cost of £50 is genuine it cannot be recovered in Court as this does not comply with Civil Procedure Rule 27.14


c. If the £50 legal cost to prepare the claim was not incurred, the statement of truth must be false



d. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it paid any debt recovery agency or legal representative in escalating the matter. If incurred – the defendant believes this consists of the administration staff of the Claimant performing their normal duties. The Defendant believes this is another example of the Claimant artificially inflating the amount of the claim.


10. As the claimant has not identified the driver they cannot assume the keeper/driver are on and the same at the time of the supposed contravention. Reference POFA 2012


11. The issue of this claim is based on a under payment or non-payment during parking, in this instance the claim should be voided and dismissed as no proof or communication has ever been received by the defendant.


The defendant acknowledges that the claimants have failed to produce a PCN, a notice to keeper any evidence that the defendant has parked on said date. Failure to obtain correct details from the registered keeper is a failure of POFA.


In light of the reasons above, the Defendant respectfully asks the court to strike out this excessive claim with immediate effect.


STATEMENT OF TRUTH


I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.


Defendant XXXX
Signed XXXX
Date XXXX

********************************

Coupon-mad

You could try going large at the end, re the fake added costs, like this:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75922229#Comment_75922229

We are trying to get more cases struck out, like happens in the Southampton & the IOW circuit, as stated there. Stops people having to have a hearing, and opens Judges' eyes.

MarcusRash

Okay thanks,

Let me know what your thoughts are on the ending, or if it is too much?

Thanks

"In the County Court Business Centre, Northampton

CLAIM NO XXXX

BETWEEN

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED
V

XXXX

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.


2. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. .

3. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

4. The signs in this car park are not at all prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. At time of the alleged contravention, the one single small sign at the entrance could not be read fully and properly without stopping, and it is also possible to park in a bay without coming close to any other sign. Civil Enforcement are required to show evidence to the contrary.

5. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

6. The defendants vehicle is a lease vehicle and the leasing company in question have admitted to the defendant in writing that they had an incorrect address for the defendant. Thus liability has never been passed from the lease company to the hirer/lessee as set out in POFA schedule 4. Liability can only be transferred if the registered keeper (lease company) had properly notified the parking firm of the name and address for service of the hirer/lessee. They failed, therefore if there is any liability to pursue it still rests with the lease company and it is indisputable that the defendant was never served with a compliant notice to hirer.

7. The address was incorrect that the claimant has been pursuing and any correspondence via letter has not been received by the defendant. The address the claimant have on file is ** **** ***** ******* this is the address of a neighbouring town and not the legal address of the defendant. The correct address for the defendant is ** ***** **** *******and lies in a separate village. The address was wrong on the claim form issued by the claimant, therefore not received by the defendant at their legal address.

8. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case.


a. It is believed the Claimant does not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. The Defendant has no evidence that they have any proprietary interest in the car park/land in question. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name. Any such claim should be in the name of the landowner.


b. The Defendant asks the Claimant to provide a full, up-to date and signed/dated contract with the landowner (a statement saying someone has seen the contract is not enough). The contract needs to state that the Claimant is entitled to pursue matters such as these through the issue of Parking Charge Notices and in the courts in their own name. The defendant clarifies that this should be an actual copy and not just a document that claims a contract/agreement exists.


9. Even if a contract had been established it would be void. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant was not acting in "good faith" and that the charges are unlawful, as they are in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, specifically regulation 62(4).


a. The Defendant believes that the charges added Legal Representative (£50) are fake and were not incurred by the Claimant and therefore cannot be recovered in Court as part of this claim.


b. Even if the Legal representative’s cost of £50 is genuine it cannot be recovered in Court as this does not comply with Civil Procedure Rule 27.14


c. If the £50 legal cost to prepare the claim was not incurred, the statement of truth must be false



d. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it paid any debt recovery agency or legal representative in escalating the matter. If incurred – the defendant believes this consists of the administration staff of the Claimant performing their normal duties. The Defendant believes this is another example of the Claimant artificially inflating the amount of the claim.


10. As the claimant has not identified the driver they cannot assume the keeper/driver are on and the same at the time of the supposed contravention. Reference POFA 2012


11. The issue of this claim is based on a under payment or non-payment during parking, in this instance the claim should be voided and dismissed as no proof or communication has ever been received by the defendant.


The defendant acknowledges that the claimants have failed to produce a PCN, a notice to keeper any evidence that the defendant has parked on said date. Failure to obtain correct details from the registered keeper is a failure of POFA.


Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
- CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

- Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

- The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

- Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

- According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

- The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

- Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

- In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

- There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

- The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

In light of the reasons above, the Defendant respectfully asks the court to strike out this excessive claim with immediate effect.


STATEMENT OF TRUTH


I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.


Defendant XXXX
Signed XXXX
Date XXXX

********************************

Coupon-mad

Obviously the new paragraphs all need numbering.

Why would I say it's too much when I told you to use it all, and I explained why!

MarcusRash

"In the County Court Business Centre, Northampton

CLAIM NO XXXX

BETWEEN

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED
V

XXXX

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.


2. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. .

3. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

4. The signs in this car park are not at all prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. At time of the alleged contravention, the one single small sign at the entrance could not be read fully and properly without stopping, and it is also possible to park in a bay without coming close to any other sign. Civil Enforcement are required to show evidence to the contrary.

5. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

6. The defendants vehicle is a lease vehicle and the leasing company in question have admitted to the defendant in writing that they had an incorrect address for the defendant. Thus liability has never been passed from the lease company to the hirer/lessee as set out in POFA schedule 4. Liability can only be transferred if the registered keeper (lease company) had properly notified the parking firm of the name and address for service of the hirer/lessee. They failed, therefore if there is any liability to pursue it still rests with the lease company and it is indisputable that the defendant was never served with a compliant notice to hirer.

7. The address was incorrect that the claimant has been pursuing and any correspondence via letter has not been received by the defendant. The address the claimant have on file is ** **** ***** ******* this is the address of a neighbouring town and not the legal address of the defendant. The correct address for the defendant is ** ***** **** *******and lies in a separate village. The address was wrong on the claim form issued by the claimant, therefore not received by the defendant at their legal address.

8. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case.


a. It is believed the Claimant does not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. The Defendant has no evidence that they have any proprietary interest in the car park/land in question. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name. Any such claim should be in the name of the landowner.


b. The Defendant asks the Claimant to provide a full, up-to date and signed/dated contract with the landowner (a statement saying someone has seen the contract is not enough). The contract needs to state that the Claimant is entitled to pursue matters such as these through the issue of Parking Charge Notices and in the courts in their own name. The defendant clarifies that this should be an actual copy and not just a document that claims a contract/agreement exists.


9. Even if a contract had been established it would be void. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant was not acting in "good faith" and that the charges are unlawful, as they are in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, specifically regulation 62(4).


a. The Defendant believes that the charges added Legal Representative (£50) are fake and were not incurred by the Claimant and therefore cannot be recovered in Court as part of this claim.


b. Even if the Legal representative’s cost of £50 is genuine it cannot be recovered in Court as this does not comply with Civil Procedure Rule 27.14


c. If the £50 legal cost to prepare the claim was not incurred, the statement of truth must be false



d. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it paid any debt recovery agency or legal representative in escalating the matter. If incurred – the defendant believes this consists of the administration staff of the Claimant performing their normal duties. The Defendant believes this is another example of the Claimant artificially inflating the amount of the claim.


10. As the claimant has not identified the driver they cannot assume the keeper/driver are on and the same at the time of the supposed contravention. Reference POFA 2012


11. The issue of this claim is based on a under payment or non-payment during parking, in this instance the claim should be voided and dismissed as no proof or communication has ever been received by the defendant.


12. The defendant acknowledges that the claimants have failed to produce a PCN, a notice to keeper any evidence that the defendant has parked on said date. Failure to obtain correct details from the registered keeper is a failure of POFA.


13. Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
- CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

14. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

15. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

16. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

17. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

18. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

19. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

20. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

21. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

22. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

In light of the reasons above, the Defendant respectfully asks the court to strike out this excessive claim with immediate effect.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.


Defendant XXXX
Signed XXXX
Date XXXX

********************************

Coupon-mad

Nearly there.

Remove #9 entirely as the added section more than covers 'added costs':

8. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case. [STRIKE]a. [/STRIKE] It is believed the Claimant does not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. The Defendant has no evidence that they have any proprietary interest in the car park/land in question. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name. Any such claim should be in the name of the landowner.


[STRIKE]b. The Defendant asks the Claimant to provide a full, up-to date and signed/dated contract with the landowner (a statement saying someone has seen the contract is not enough). The contract needs to state that the Claimant is entitled to pursue matters such as these through the issue of Parking Charge Notices and in the courts in their own name. The defendant clarifies that this should be an actual copy and not just a document that claims a contract/agreement exists.[/STRIKE]


[STRIKE]9. Even if a contract had been established it would be void. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant was not acting in "good faith" and that the charges are unlawful, as they are in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, specifically regulation 62(4).


a. The Defendant believes that the charges added Legal Representative (£50) are fake and were not incurred by the Claimant and therefore cannot be recovered in Court as part of this claim.


b. Even if the Legal representative’s cost of £50 is genuine it cannot be recovered in Court as this does not comply with Civil Procedure Rule 27.14


c. If the £50 legal cost to prepare the claim was not incurred, the statement of truth must be false



d. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it paid any debt recovery agency or legal representative in escalating the matter. If incurred – the defendant believes this consists of the administration staff of the Claimant performing their normal duties. The Defendant believes this is another example of the Claimant artificially inflating the amount of the claim.
[/STRIKE]

[STRIKE]10.[/STRIKE] 9. As the Claimant has not identified the driver they cannot assume the keeper/driver are [STRIKE]on[/STRIKE] one and the same at the time of the supposed contravention. Reference POFA 2012


[STRIKE]11.[/STRIKE] 10. The issue of this claim [STRIKE]is[/STRIKE] appears to be based on an alleged under-payment or non-payment during parking, [STRIKE]in this instance the claim should be voided and dismissed as no proof or[/STRIKE] yet no evidence nor communication has ever been received by the Defendant.

MarcusRash

"In the County Court Business Centre, Northampton

CLAIM NO XXXX

BETWEEN

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED
V

XXXX

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.


2. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. .

3. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

4. The signs in this car park are not at all prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. At time of the alleged contravention, the one single small sign at the entrance could not be read fully and properly without stopping, and it is also possible to park in a bay without coming close to any other sign. Civil Enforcement are required to show evidence to the contrary.

5. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

6. The defendants vehicle is a lease vehicle and the leasing company in question have admitted to the defendant in writing that they had an incorrect address for the defendant. Thus liability has never been passed from the lease company to the hirer/lessee as set out in POFA schedule 4. Liability can only be transferred if the registered keeper (lease company) had properly notified the parking firm of the name and address for service of the hirer/lessee. They failed, therefore if there is any liability to pursue it still rests with the lease company and it is indisputable that the defendant was never served with a compliant notice to hirer.

7. The address was incorrect that the claimant has been pursuing and any correspondence via letter has not been received by the defendant. The address the claimant have on file is ** **** ***** ******* this is the address of a neighbouring town and not the legal address of the defendant. The correct address for the defendant is ** ***** **** *******and lies in a separate village. The address was wrong on the claim form issued by the claimant, therefore not received by the defendant at their legal address.

8. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case.


a. It is believed the Claimant does not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. The Defendant has no evidence that they have any proprietary interest in the car park/land in question. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name. Any such claim should be in the name of the landowner.


b. The Defendant asks the Claimant to provide a full, up-to date and signed/dated contract with the landowner (a statement saying someone has seen the contract is not enough). The contract needs to state that the Claimant is entitled to pursue matters such as these through the issue of Parking Charge Notices and in the courts in their own name. The defendant clarifies that this should be an actual copy and not just a document that claims a contract/agreement exists.


9. Even if a contract had been established it would be void. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant was not acting in "good faith" and that the charges are unlawful, as they are in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, specifically regulation 62(4).


a. The Defendant believes that the charges added Legal Representative (£50) are fake and were not incurred by the Claimant and therefore cannot be recovered in Court as part of this claim.


b. Even if the Legal representative’s cost of £50 is genuine it cannot be recovered in Court as this does not comply with Civil Procedure Rule 27.14


c. If the £50 legal cost to prepare the claim was not incurred, the statement of truth must be false



d. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it paid any debt recovery agency or legal representative in escalating the matter. If incurred – the defendant believes this consists of the administration staff of the Claimant performing their normal duties. The Defendant believes this is another example of the Claimant artificially inflating the amount of the claim.


10. As the claimant has not identified the driver they cannot assume the keeper/driver are on and the same at the time of the supposed contravention. Reference POFA 2012


11. The issue of this claim is based on a under payment or non-payment during parking, in this instance the claim should be voided and dismissed as no proof or communication has ever been received by the defendant.


12. The defendant acknowledges that the claimants have failed to produce a PCN, a notice to keeper any evidence that the defendant has parked on said date. Failure to obtain correct details from the registered keeper is a failure of POFA.


13. Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
- CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

14. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

15. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

16. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

17. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

18. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

19. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

20. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

21. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

22. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

In light of the reasons above, the Defendant respectfully asks the court to strike out this excessive claim with immediate effect.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.


Defendant XXXX
Signed XXXX
Date XXXX

********************************

Coupon-mad

You didn't remove everything I crossed out.

Please re-read my above reply. Obviously I didn't explain each and every crossed out paragraph - I hoped the strike-throughs were clear enough and didn't quote #8 for fun!